HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6254
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6254)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Midtown Connector Project/Matadero Creek
Title: Discussion and Direction Regarding the Midtown Connector Project
(Formerly Known as the Matadero Creek Trail Project)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction to staff regarding next
steps for proceeding with the Midtown Connector Project, formerly known as the Matadero
Creek Trail Project.
Executive Summary
In November 2012, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (Board) unanimously approved
$10.0 million in grants to fund pedestrian and bike path improvements proposed by Stanford
and the City of Palo Alto.
The Board action included the allocation of $1.5 million in funding for a proposed trail along the
levees within the Matadero Creek channel and also established conditions that the City must
meet prior to Board approval of a project funding agreement, outlined in Attachment A. The
Matadero Creek Trail Project was included in the Stanford-Palo Alto Trails Program application
and in both the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan and the City of Palo Alto Bicycle +
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The project goal is to establish a “Bay to Ridge Trail” network to
seamlessly connect the Stanford University campus, nearby neighborhoods, employment
centers, parks, schools and other public facilities to an abundant and diverse set of recreational
opportunities extending from the San Francisco Bay to the Arastradero Preserve.
In early 2013, staff began community engagement for the proposed Matadero Creek Trail
Project and met with resident stakeholders through the Midtown Residents Association. In
response to community input, staff expanded the feasibility study to include alternative
alignments, and later renamed the project the Midtown Connector Project to reflect a
commitment to assess alternatives to the creek trail alignment. Staff began a feasibility study of
the Matadero Creek alignment and alternative alignments in 2014, and held a study kick-off
meeting in June 2014. Notes on the initial public meetings are included as Attachment B.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In early 2015, staff convened a Citizens Advisory Committee to help define alternatives for
further study, along with a suite of evaluation criteria that could be used to review the
alternatives. A second public meeting was held to focus on these same issues. In mid-2015, a
preliminary constructability review indicated that constraints along the Matadero Creek
channel may limit the feasibility of a public access trail on large segments of the corridor.
Constraints include seasonal access closure structures, steep grades and required maintenance
access to the creek channel.
Staff presented these preliminary findings to the Citizen Advisory Committee on September 8,
2015 for discussion. The Citizen Advisory Committee meeting agenda packet is enclosed as
Attachment C. Staff subsequently identified three options for the City Council’s consideration,
as elaborated in the Discussion section below. These options include: continue the study of the
creek alignment with the understanding that design, permitting, construction, and maintenance
costs will be significantly greater than originally anticipated, end the feasibility study, or
continue the study of alternative east-west alignments in lieu of the Matadero Creek channel.
Background
The adopted City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) identifies the
Matadero Creek channel levees and a number of other on-street bicycle routes through the
Midtown neighborhood of Palo Alto. The BPTP identifies bicycle and pedestrian connections
across the barriers of Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and US 101 freeway as key objectives.
Residents of Midtown and of the Stanford University campus who may travel through Midtown
for recreational access to parks and the Baylands are well aware of the challenges of crossing
the many busy streets along the way, as well as the constraints of traffic and parking along the
connecting streets. Providing safer and more comfortable connections for bicyclists and
pedestrians is a key objective of the BPTP.
The purpose of the Midtown Connector Project is to establish an east-west bicycle and
pedestrian connection through the Midtown neighborhood between the west side of the
Caltrain tracks and Alma Street to the east side of the US 101 freeway that serves to extend and
connect recreational resources and provide improved active transportation options for both
City residents and users of the Stanford University campus.
Project Funding
In November 2012, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved $10.0
million in grants to fund pedestrian and bike path improvements proposed by Stanford
University and the City of Palo Alto. The $10.0 million included $1.5 million for a proposed trail
along the levees of the Matadero Creek.
The grant application (http://bit.ly/1BroN5e) proposed the trail alignment along the Matadero
Creek channel levees and estimated a total project cost of $2.0 million. This project is also
City of Palo Alto Page 3
identified in the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan (http://bit.ly/11oO6oA), which was last
updated in 1995.
The feasibility study phase for the Midtown Connector Project is funded at $383,645 in the
City’s FY15 Capital Improvement Plan budget through CIP PL-14001 Midtown Connector
Project. Through a public procurement process, the City retained Alta Planning + Design to lead
a consultant team to prepare the study.
Initial efforts provided a high-level evaluation of five alternative alignments for a Midtown
Connector between Alma Street and the US 101 freeway, including a Matadero Creek Trail
concept, Colorado Avenue, Loma Verde Avenue, California Avenue, and East Meadow Drive.
Approximately $200,000 is remaining in the budget allocated for the feasibility study. Based on
the conditions established by the County Board of Supervisors, successful completion of the
Feasibility Study and concurrence by the Santa Clara Valley Water District is required prior to
beginning the next steps of environmental review, more detailed preliminary plans, permitting,
plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), bidding, and construction. If a different alignment is
selected as the locally-preferred alternative, City staff would need to consult with the County
staff to determine whether this alternative meets the requirements of the original grant award.
Significant deviations from the original creek channel alignment may require the revised project
to compete in a new competitive grant process established by the County Board of Supervisors.
Community Feedback
Staff met with community members at resident association meetings in 2013 and at public
meetings on June 26, 2014 and April 14, 2015, as reflected in the attached meeting notes.
Additional public comments were gathered using an online map developed for the bicycle
boulevards and enhanced bikeways program. Comments made within the Midtown
neighborhood were pulled out and analyzed separately to help with the initial alternatives
development and planning. A project-specific Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed
in early 2015 for the purpose of increasing community participation in the planning process to
help define overall project objectives, identify alignment alternatives, and to consider the
criteria for evaluating alternatives. Eleven members of the public, one Pedestrian and Bicycle
Advisory Committee (PABAC) member, and one Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC) member comprise the CAC. Two CAC meetings were held on February 26, 2015 and
September 8, 2015. In addition, staff met one-on-one with interested CAC members.
Overall, the project has received feedback in favor of and in opposition to an alignment along
the creek corridor. Most participants agree that an east-west connection should be comfortable
and accessible. Many see the future Adobe Creek/Highway 101 overcrossing and the existing
Embarcadero Road overcrossing as providing adequate accommodations, while others believe
that these two routes are too far north and south to fully meet the needs of the Midtown
community. The Caltrain and Highway 101 freeway crossings, along with the limited available
right-of-way along the Matadero Creek channel are among the major challenges cited by the
public. Other concerns include security, privacy, lighting, and safety at mid-block crossings.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
There seems to be concern about the cost of the project and the possibility of needing to forfeit
the County grant funds.
At the first Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on February 26, 2015, the project team
and CAC members discussed preliminary alignments including: (1) the Matadero Creek channel,
and (2) on-‐street bicycle routes with enhanced pedestrian facilities along North California
Avenue, Oregon Avenue, Moreno Avenue and Amarillo Avenue, Colorado Avenue, East Meadow
Drive, or Loma Verde Avenue, as shown in Attachment D. Staff sought input on draft criteria for
selection of alignments and agreement on five alternative alignments for initial screening using
the criteria. Attachment E depicts the five alternatives selected by the CAC, which were Oregon
Avenue, Colorado Avenue, Loma Verde Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and the Matadero Creek
channel, as well as some of the alignment constraints. Staff and the CAC also discussed goals for
Community Workshop #2, which was subsequently held on April 14, 2015.
While the City Council charged staff with assessing the feasibility of the Matadero Creek channel
alignment, the CAC has sought to understand the rationale for selecting the creek channel
alignment for in-depth evaluation prior to a screening of alternative alignments using the
evaluation criteria developed for ranking the east-‐west connector routes. Questions raised
include the weighting of the different criteria, whether a creek trail that could not remain open
24 hours a day and 365 days per year is worth studying, and how and when costs for each
option figured into the evaluation.
At the second CAC meeting on September 8, 2015, the staff and CAC members discussed the
preliminary constructability review findings. The CAC was supportive of discontinuing study of a
Matadero Creek channel alignment, based on the significant challenges and suggested
continuing to study a high-quality protected bikeway along Loma Verde Avenue, Colorado
Avenue or East Meadow Drive. The CAC also discussed an option to focus more detailed study
on a Midtown project to bridge the Alma Street and Caltrain barrier. CAC members are
concerned that the City may have to give the grant back to the County if a suitable alternative is
not identified. If possible, CAC members would like the City to retain the funding for an
alternate corridor.
The Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) discussed the feasibility
study at its October 6, 2015 meeting. Following discussion of the significant challenges along
the Matadero Creek channel alignment, PABAC adopted two motions recommending:
(1) The City discontinue the study of the Matadero Creek channel alignment as this
alternative presents obstacles that are overly expensive and/or infeasible to overcome;
and
(2) The City would be well-served by a new grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing
over/under Alma Street and Caltrain between Oregon Expressway and East Meadow
Drive. This piece of the Midtown Connector Project is important and should be
advanced.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Staff notes the City has long-term plans for a new South Palo Alto pedestrian and bicycle grade
separation project, as identified in the City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Staff submitted a $13.0 million estimate for this project in response to the recent Valley
Transportation Plan 2040 call for projects. The project would construct a grade-separated
bicycle/pedestrian crossing between California Avenue Caltrain station and the at-grade
crossing on East Meadow Drive.
Inter-Agency Coordination
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is a key partner for any public use within the Matadero
Creek channel. An approved Joint-Use Agreement for public access is required prior to
expenditure of the $1.5M in County funding. Following the April 14, 2015 community
workshop, staff postponed the May CAC meeting in order to take a fresh look at the feasibility
study approach. Staff determined that the evaluation of alignment alternatives should not
proceed further prior to an initial screening of the Matadero Creek alignment in collaboration
with Santa Clara Valley Water District staff.
On August 21, 2015, City staff and two members of the Alta Planning + Design consulting team
met with Sue Tippets from the Santa Clara Valley Water District to discuss the feasibility of a
trail along Matadero Creek channel. The following list includes the takeaway points from the
meeting:
City will need to work with private property owners to get access within the easement areas
No current plans to daylight the creek west of Alma Street
o Reflective strips might be allowed, such as LED bot dots
o Lighting is allowed under long overpasses and at intersections with roadway
Joint-use Agreement would defer all responsibility and liability to the city
City would need to put access closure structures in at Greer Road, Louis Road, and Middlefield
Road in advance of rain and remove following rain events during the rainy season (or close the
trail for duration of the rainy season)
Concern about how the ramps could be shared and hydraulic analysis might be required
especially if the flood wall and/or ramps are moved
Bridges and cantilevered structures are likely not feasible due to clearance and access top of
bank for maintenance
City would be required to partner to support ongoing required maintenance needs such as
o Excavators to clear sediments every three to five years, depending on rain levels
o Vegetation management for spillover landscape and weep holes a few times per year
o Graffiti and trash removal ongoing/as needed
o Security for mowing and sediment removal
o Trail closure for flail mower (throws rocks, etc.)
Discussion
After receiving public comments and meeting with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, staff
has determined that there are significant challenges that will increase the design, permitting
and construction costs of a trail along the Matadero Creek channel. There is also a significant
City of Palo Alto Page 6
amount of community concern surrounding the potential for access and security impacts to the
abutting properties.
A preliminary constructability review indicates that constraints along the Matadero Creek
alignment may limit the feasibility of a public access trail on a majority of the Matadero Creek
corridor. Constraints include access closure structures that are put in place at three locations to
prevent flooding during the rainy season and steep trail gradients required for maintenance
access to the creek channel.
Staff identified potential impacts of the Matadero Creek Flood Control Project on trail
feasibility as an area requiring further investigation and reviewed historical documents,
including the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project Engineer’s Report,
Construction Drawings, and Final Environmental Impact Report.
Matadero Creek Flood Control Project
The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐‐Term Remediation Project, a six-‐‐year, $23.0-million flood-‐‐
control effort was completed in 2005 to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve
the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
goal of 100-‐‐year (1%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The improvements
reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of flooding in Matadero Creek and Barron Creek between
Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. While the project provides protection for a 1% (100-
‐‐year) flood event, it does not mitigate for tidal flooding, which affects the channel area from
the bay to the Middlefield Road area.
The flood control project included construction of access closure structures, which are
installed across the existing maintenance road annually, from October to April, at three
locations: Middlefield, Louis Road, and Greer Road. These structures are installed manually
and are required for flood control during high-water events.
Information gathered to date indicates a creek trail was not a priority for either agency during
the planning process for the flood control project, when trail infrastructure might have been
designed in harmony with the project. A summary of the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐‐Term
Remediation Project review is included in Attachment C.
Creek Channel Maintenance Access
The Santa Clara Valley Water District utilizes the existing levees to access the Matadero Creek
channel for vegetation management, graffiti and trash removal, and sediment removal. A
public access trail would need to maintain access for maintenance vehicles through a Joint-use
Agreement with the water district. Preliminary concepts to maintain access indicate that the
trail would ramp steeply, up and down at approximately 4.99% grades at four locations along
the creek channel. The maintenance ramp would need to split off at the low point of the trail
and continue at a steeper gradient to access the channel. Attachment C includes a conceptual
ramp configuration at Louis Road with maintenance access to the channel. Alternative, more
costly solutions, involving right of way acquisition, have not been analyzed.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Five-percent grades are not comfortable for many people who walk and bicycle. Due to
existing block lengths, trail users would experience few flat segments of trail. Other area trails
that ramp up and down typically do so to provide benefits to users, such as grade separated
crossings of intersections. Coupled with at grade crossings of intersections, the ramp
configuration required for maintenance access would likely discourage many potential trail
users. Locations that would require ramping include:
East of Alma Street on the north side
East of Middlefield Road on the south side (at the tennis courts)
East of Louis Road on the north side
At US 101 freeway
Screening Conclusion
In summary, the trail alignment screening identifies significant potential challenges to achieving
the vision of a creek corridor trail to connect community facilities for use by bicyclists and
pedestrians of all ages. Should the City continue to pursue a trail on the Matadero Creek levees,
and should it prove feasible, the Santa Clara Valley Water District staff has outlined the
following options:
1) City takes on full responsibility to close trail to public and install access closure
structures in advance of a significant rain event and to remove them following a
significant rain event; and
2) Keep the trail closed during the rainy season from approximately October to April,
similar to the Adobe Creek undercrossing.
Based on all that is known today, staff believes there are three options on how to proceed
and would appreciated the City Council’s direction:
1. Continue Feasibility Study: Continue the current feasibility study for a trail along the creek
corridor with the understanding that the trail design, permitting and construction costs will be
much, much greater than originally estimated. Unanticipated challenges will need to be
overcome. These include: a) avoidance/modification of the ramps/service roads, b) city
resources required for installation/maintenance of closure gates during rain events, c)
assumption of liability by the city for their installation and other potential claims, d) acquisition
of property in certain locations and e) community opposition.
2. End Feasibility Study: End the current feasibility study for a trail along the creek corridor
and do nothing further. The bikeway program will continue to plan, design and construct
specific corridors based on their priority in the citywide network. The remaining local funding
would be redirected to other bikeway projects. Grant funds would be returned to the County
for reallocation to other projects. City staff would coordinate with County staff to advance
other local bikeway projects to compete for the funding.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
3. Study an Alternative Alignment: With the concurrence of the County of Santa Clara, re-
scope the current study to examine the feasibility of a high-quality protected bikeway along
Loma Verde Avenue or Colorado Avenue and/or a bike/pedestrian connection over/under Alma
Street and Caltrain. The creek corridor would be ruled out as infeasible based on challenges
outlined above. City staff would coordinate with County staff to determine if there are any
potential obstacles with this strategy.
Resource Impact
The feasibility study phase for the Midtown Connector Project is funded in the City’s Adopted
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP PL-14001). Approximately $200,000 is remaining in the budget
allocated for the feasibility study.
Option 1: Continue Feasibility Study
The original project cost estimate of $2.0M total cost is insufficient for a creek trail alignment,
which will be substantially more expensive than previously anticipated and more expensive
than alternative alignments. Should the Council proceed with Option 1, additional local funding
would need to be allocated to complete environmental review, overcome unanticipated
challenges, develop community consensus, and satisfy all conditions required by the County
Board of Supervisors. County grant funds of $1.5M are available for design and construction of
a creek alignment should the City satisfy the project conditions approved by the County. Based
on identified constraints, significant additional funds from other sources would be required for
construction.
Option 2: End Feasibility Study
The remaining $200,000 in local funding would become available for programming for priority
bikeway projects. Staff would coordinate with Council and the County to advance competitive
local projects for the $1.5M funding returned from the Matadero Creek trail award.
Option 3: Study Alternative Alignment
Both the Colorado Avenue and Loma Verde alignment alternatives could likely be designed and
constructed for less than $1M per bikeway project, not including a new crossing of Alma Street
and Caltrain. It is unclear whether awarded County funds would be available for a parallel
alignment in Midtown. Should the Council proceed with Option 3, staff would coordinate with
the County to determine eligibility.
All Options:
Cost estimates for option(s) that advance would need to be refined through additional study. If
additional funds are allocated from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation Projects
CIP, this would reduce funding availability for other projects.
Timeline
The timeline will be determined by the option chosen by City Council.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Environmental Review
The feasibility study was intended to inform environmental review. Based on the City Council’s
direction and the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s position, the environmental review will
either: proceed as originally anticipated, not proceed, or focus on an alternative to the creek
alignment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: November 2012 Board of Supervisors Action (PDF)
Attachment B: 2013 Midtown Resident Association Project Meeting Notes (PDF)
Attachment B-1: Alta_Matadero-Creek-Trail-Feasibility-06262014-Public-Kickoff-
Meeting-Notes (PDF)
Attachment C: Citizen Advisory Committee Agenda Packet (PDF)
Attachment D: Preliminary Alignment Alternatives (PDF)
Attachment E: MataderoCreekTrail_PrelimAlignmentAlts (PDF)
Attachment E-1: Constraints (PDF)
County of Santa Clara
Office of the County Executive
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 1 of 11
County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
65238
DATE: November 20, 2012
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Sylvia Gallegos, Deputy County Executive
SUBJECT: Report Back on Alternative Mitigation for Impact OS-3 in Stanford 2000 GUP EIR
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Under advisement from the May 22, 2012 (Item No. 10), June 19, 2012 (Item No. 21), and August 7, 2012
(Item No. 37) Board of Supervisors meetings: Consider recommendations relating to recreational projects to
fulfill alterative mitigation for Impact OS-3 identified in the Environmental Impact Report for Stanford University’s 2000 General Use Permit.
Possible Action:
a. Accept report back;
b. Find that these projects - the Bay Trail Connection, Mindego Gateway, Red Barn Picnic Area and
Trails, El Corte de Madera Staging Area and Trails, Alpine Pond Boardwalk, Stanford Perimeter Trail, Matadero Creek Trail, Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101, Fremont Road Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trail, and Spring Down Pond - would provide adequate substitute mitigation,
in part, for the adverse effect on recreational opportunities for existing or new campus residents and
facility users caused by the housing and academic development approved by the 2000 Stanford
University General Use Permit, which reduces the availability of recreational facilities while increasing the demand for such facilities (Impact OS-3);
c. Declare intent to fund all or parts of certain proposed projects and approve project-specific conditions,
if any; and
d. Direct the Administration to negotiate project agreements for approved projects and submit for
approval to Board of Supervisors consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There is no negative impact to the General Fund as a result of the recommended actions.
CONTRACT HISTORY
Not applicable.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
6
Packet Pg. 17
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 2 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
The County of Santa Clara has available $10,379,474 to use on projects that will mitigate the loss of
recreational facilities for existing or new campus residents and facility users due to development on the
Stanford University campus resulting from approval of a General Use Permit (GUP) in 2000.
In 2000, the County certified a program EIR and issued the GUP to Stanford University for campus-wide development. EIR Impact OS-3 recognizes that Stanford housing and academic development permitted under the GUP on several sites used for recreation and an overall increase to Stanford’s resident and worker
population would reduce the availability of recreational facilities while increasing the demand for such
facilities, causing a loss of recreational opportunities for existing or new campus residents and facility users.
To mitigate the loss of recreational facilities, two mitigation measures were adopted. Mitigation OS-3A requires Stanford to improve parks in the faculty area to provide suitable recreation for the campus
population and to continue to provide neighborhood recreation in new residential areas.
Mitigation OS-3B requires Stanford to dedicate trail easements. Mitigation OS-3B does not require Stanford to make any improvements to the trail corridors. Mitigation OS-3B was satisfied by GUP condition I.2 requiring Stanford to dedicate easements for, develop, and maintain the portions of two trail alignments
that cross Stanford lands shown in the 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan (Routes S1 and C1).
Agreements for the trails easements were to be executed within one year of GUP approval in 2000.
However, due to complexities associated with the Alpine Road C1 alignment, the Board directed County staff and Stanford in 2001 to suspend work on the C1 alignment and to proceed with the S1 alignment. In
December 2005, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute a Trails Agreement with Stanford
University.
Trails Agreement
The Trails Agreement required Stanford to construct and dedicate one of the specific S1 trail alignments near
Page Mill Road. Stanford completed construction of the S1 trail alignment and the trail was opened to the
public on May 20, 2011. The C1 trail alignment proposed by Stanford followed Alpine Road. Because
portions of this alignment ran through jurisdictions of the County of San Mateo and the Town of Portola Valley, the Trails Agreement gave Stanford time to reach agreement with those jurisdictions for their portions of the alignment. If Stanford did not reach agreement with the County of San Mateo and/or the
Town of Portola Valley within a certain amount of time, Stanford was required to pay the County $8.4
million for the portion of the C1 trail in San Mateo County and $2.8 million for the portion in Portola Valley.
The County of San Mateo and Stanford did not reach agreement within the amount of time identified in the Trails Agreement and, thus, in accordance with the Trails Agreement, Stanford paid the County $10,379,474
on February 29, 2012.
The Trails Agreement provided that these funds are to be used to mitigate the significant environmental
impact due to the loss of recreational facilities and the resulting decrease in recreational opportunities for the target beneficiaries caused by development authorized under the GUP. The Trails Agreement further
provides that funds shall not be used for facilities on Stanford University lands without Stanford’s consent.
6
Packet Pg. 18
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 3 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
Process to Identify Mitigation Measures for Loss of Recreational Facilities and the Resulting Loss of Recreational Opportunities
With the transfer of the $10.4 million, the obligation to mitigate the loss of recreational facilities is assumed
by the County of Santa Clara. In response, the County issued a request for applications for projects that would serve as alternative mitigation measures to address the loss of recreational facilities on the Stanford campus. The County received 15 project applications from six local agencies.
In addition, Supervisor Kniss previously proposed two projects: the Dumbarton Link in the San Francisco Bay Trail, which has also been proposed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as the Bay Trail Connection, and the Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101, which has also been submitted as part of the Stanford University/City of Palo Alto application.
The following list presents the six agencies and the fifteen project applications:
City of Menlo Park
Sand Hill Road Pathway
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Bay Trail Connection/Dumbarton Link (Ravenswood Open Space Preserve)
Mindego Gateway (Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve)
Red Barn Picnic Area and Trails (La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve)
Staging Area and Trails Project (El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve)
Alpine Pond Trail and Boardwalk (Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve)
Stanford University and City of Palo Alto
Stanford Perimeter Trail
Park Boulevard “Bicycle Boulevard”
Matadero Creek Trail
Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101
Arastradero Road C-2 Trail Upgrades
Town of Los Altos Hills
Fremont Road Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trail Project
Town of Portola Valley
Spring Down Pond Project
Ford Field Renovation/Expansion Project
6
Packet Pg. 19
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 4 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
Triangle Park Expansion Project
Suitability of Proposed Projects as Alternative Recreational Mitigation Measures
As set forth earlier in this report, this unique, one-time source of funds has been established for a narrow and
specific purpose –– to mitigate the adverse environmental effect due to the loss of recreational facilities for
existing or new campus residents and facility users that is caused by the housing and academic development authorized by the GUP.
There are, as a result, two tasks before the Board of Supervisors. The first task is to establish which of the
fifteen proposed recreational projects fulfill the intent of the mitigation. Those projects that do not fulfill the
intent of the mitigation would not be suitable to fund from this source of funding. The second task would be
to then decide, among those projects that do qualify, which ones to fund in whole or in part.
With these purposes in mind, the Administration and County Counsel reviewed each of the fifteen
applications to determine the suitability of the proposed projects in fulfilling the intent of the mitigation
identified in EIR Impact OS-3.
Projects Not Qualifying
The County’s obligation under the Trails Agreement is to mitigate the loss of recreational facilities and the
resulting decrease in recreational opportunities due to housing and academic development approved by the
GUP. The means by which recreational opportunities are created is by establishing new recreational facilities or expanding existing recreational facilities such that they create new recreational uses or a new facility that previously did not exist for the target beneficiaries – existing or new campus residents and
facility users. Based upon a review of the applications and communications with the project sponsors, five
of fifteen projects have been deemed to not achieve the intent of the mitigation.
To expand on these statements, establishing a new recreational facility – for example, a new trail or soccer field – is readily understood as creating a new recreational asset when none previously existed and, thus,
satisfies the intent of the mitigation to address the loss of campus recreational facilities and the resulting
decrease in recreational opportunities.
The less straightforward circumstance is when an existing recreational facility is expanded or improved. The central question is, does the totality of improvements to an existing recreational facility create a use or new
recreational facility that did not previously exist? An example would be if an existing trail were widened to
allow for equestrian use when such a use did not previously exist. Another example of such a case would be
if a street previously available to both automobile and bicycle traffic were to be dedicated exclusively to
bicycle use.
With respect to the following five projects, the totality of improvements to the existing recreational facility
does not create a new use or recreational facility. Moreover, it is not sufficient – as has been posited by
some applicants – that the improvements make an existing facility more attractive for more people to use.
6
Packet Pg. 20
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 5 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
Sand Hill Road Pathway (City of Menlo Park)
This proposed project is not a suitable alternative mitigation measure because the project would repave existing asphalt paths along both sides of Sand Hill Road, and would thus, in effect, be a maintenance project
rather than a new recreational facility or use for the target beneficiaries.
Park Blvd “Bicycle Boulevard” (City of Palo Alto)
Palo Alto’s Bicycle Boulevards are low-traffic, low-speed streets where bicycle travel is prioritized over automobile travel. The proposed improvements include signage to brand the route as an official “Bicycle
Boulevard,” apply share-the-road “Sharrow” roadway markings, remove certain Stop signs, and install traffic
calming features. Painted sharrow symbols (a bicycle with two arrows) do not designate a section of a street
for the exclusive use of bicycle riders. Rather, they are visible reminders to share the road safely.
The proposed improvements, taken together, do not constitute a new recreational facility nor expand
recreational uses because bicyclists can currently use Park Boulevard as a bicycle route, and there are already
barriers in place at certain intersections (e.g., Park Blvd at Chestnut) to discourage automobile traffic. After
the improvements are completed, automobiles would still be permitted to use the street so Palo Alto’s proposal does not create a facility that would be exclusively for the use of bicyclists.
The project also does not qualify for funding merely because it may facilitate people traveling to other
existing or new recreational facilities, it must stand on its own merits as a recreational facility. As set forth
in Stanford University and Palo Alto’s joint letter to County Counsel dated October 17, 2012, the applicants appear to believe that Park Boulevard qualifies for funding because “Installation of bicycle boulevard improvements in these two locations would increase recreational opportunities by enabling Stanford and
Palo Alto residents to bicycle to and from the proposed Stanford Perimeter Trail, recreational facilities on the
Stanford campus, the proposed Matadero Creek Trail, and existing bicycle lanes facilities connecting to the
proposed Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge and Bay to Ridge Trail routes.” This is not the case because the totality of the improvements does not create a new recreational use. If this were the case, it would imply that any road project that facilitated access to a recreational facility would qualify for funding regardless of
whether the road project created a new recreational facility or use.
Arastradero C2 Trail Upgrade (City of Palo Alto)
The Arastradero C2 Trail is an existing 6-foot wide asphalt shared use (pedestrians and bicyclists) path along the north side of Arastradero Road with bike lanes on both sides of the road (except for the segment between
Deer Creek and Purissima, which is too narrow for bike lanes.) The proposal is to widen the existing path
with two-foot shoulders with decomposed granite on each side of the path. The project would not result in
the establishment of new recreational uses (for example, equestrian use) because the path would be limited to
pedestrians and bicyclists both before and after the improvements; nor would it result in the dedication of additional land for recreation.
In concluding that the Arastradero C2 trail project is not qualified, the Administration relied upon the
features and purposes of the upgrade of the C1 trail along Alpine Road – a project in the Trails Agreement
6
Packet Pg. 21
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 6 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
that was ultimately not undertaken – to determine qualification because the Alpine C1 trail project had been
previously deemed acceptable in the 2005 Trails Agreement to fulfill the intent of the mitigation.
Stanford/Palo Alto’s October 17 letter to County Counsel assumes that all of the proposed projects are
comparable to the Alpine C1 trail project. This is not true with regard to a couple of the projects, including the Arastradero C2 trail project.
The Trails Agreement originally contemplated that the Alpine C1 trail would be improved between the
Menlo Park city limits and Arastradero Road in Portola Valley. In its current state, the Alpine C1 trail is
comprised of bike lanes on portions of each side of Alpine Road, along with a shared use (pedestrians and bicyclists) asphalt path. The C1 trail along Alpine Road is narrow (3-feet) and deteriorated in many sections of the trail with tree roots buckling the asphalt surface. There are significant gaps in the trail and a section
closed off for safety, and it is in danger of falling into San Francisquito Creek in certain sections. In short,
the Alpine trail is fragmented and deteriorated, and is neither complete nor safe as a shared use trail.
The proposed improvements included extensive roadwork along Alpine Road in the Weekend Acres section consisting of significant engineering and environmental work and major grading to move a hillside to shift
the road right-of-way and trail further away from residential properties adjacent to Alpine Road, as well as
widening, re-constructing, and, in some sections, constructing a new trail. The totality of improvements to
the Alpine C1 trail would have re-aligned the trail on to newly dedicated land and made other improvements that would essentially complete and enable the C1 trail’s actual use.
By comparison, the Arastradero C2 trail is a six-foot wide shared use (pedestrians and bicyclists) asphalt
path with easy accessibility, three safe, well-marked, at-grade crossings with excellent visibility along the
proposed segment. As acknowledged in the project application, “The Arastradero Trail is already a recreational facility for residents of nearby neighborhoods, Stanford students and faculty, and employees of nearby businesses.” The conclusion is that the Arastradero C2 trail is currently usable, and the
improvements would only widen and make the trail more attractive, but would not facilitate an additional
recreational use.
Ford Field Renovation/Expansion Project (Town of Portola Valley)
This proposed project is not a suitable alternative mitigation measure for two reasons: First, the target
beneficiaries of this project are Little League baseball teams from Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Ladera, and
Woodside, according to the applicant. Secondly, this project is a renovation of an existing ballpark that
proposes to “expand the facility for handicap accessibility . . . and with larger capacity bleachers, dugouts, and storage areas” and does not, thus, constitute a new recreational facility nor create a new use that did not previously exist.
Triangle Park Expansion Project (Town of Portola Valley)
This proposed project is not a suitable alternative mitigation measure because the project would renovate an existing park in Portola Valley, and the capital project would not provide additional recreational uses. As indicated in the application, “the project enables continued recreation of uses of the parks (sic) lawn areas,
picnic tables, and walking paths.”
Partially Qualified Projects
6
Packet Pg. 22
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 7 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
One project has been deemed to be partially qualified. That is to say, a portion of the proposed project is
suitable for funding while other portions do not qualify for funding from this source of funds.
Alpine Pond Trail and Boardwalk (MROSD)
Currently, the project site includes Alpine Pond, the Daniels Nature Center, and a perimeter path around the
pond. This project would rebuild the existing perimeter trail, but decommission a portion and replace it with approximately 440 linear feet of boardwalk with a pond-facing box blind, which would extend through the wetland (dense cattails marsh and willows habitat) and over Alpine Pond.
This project has been deemed to be partially qualified. The perimeter trail is an existing recreational facility,
and the aspect of the project where the “remaining section of the perimeter trail would be resurfaced with compacted base rock to minimize tread erosion and provide a stable base for mobility devices” is a maintenance project. The new boardwalk ($250,000) and the Site Amenities including picnic tables,
benches, etc. ($140,000) would, however, qualify as a new recreational facility because they are assets that
currently do not exist. The boardwalk would be constructed as an interpretive boardwalk system that would
provide a low-impact, whole-access interactive experience. The educational elements of the boardwalk and interpretive features would demonstrate the flight of sensitive, native species that depend on the habitat, the role of restoration in caring for them, and practical ways a visitor can help the environment.
Use of picnic tables and benches are forms of passive recreation, which as the population ages will become
an even more popular means by which to experience the outdoors. These amenities would allow for open space visitors to enjoy beautiful vistas and scenery, experience wildlife, particularly birds, and to interact with friends and companions.
Policy Options
With respect to the recreational projects (nine qualified and one partially qualified) that have been deemed to fulfill the intent of the mitigation identified in EIR Impact OS-3, the Board of Supervisors has broad discretion with respect to the funding of these proposed projects:
The Board may declare its intent to fully commit the $10.4 million at this time.
The Board may elect to only partially commit the $10.4 million at this time (with the understanding that it would have to ultimately expend the full amount of funding to mitigate Impact OS-3.)
The Board may fund projects at a different level of funding than requested in the project application,
(and the burden would rest with the applicant to demonstrate sufficient matching funds to accomplish the project).
The Board is not required to fund an applicant’s entire application package. The Board may fund
only some of the projects.
The Board may elect to give more weight to projects that campus residents have declared to be more likely to be used by them, but the Board is not required to do so.
6
Packet Pg. 23
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 8 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
Next Steps in Process
If the Board desires to proceed with funding any of the projects, the first action by the Board would be to
declare its intent to fund the project and approve the project-specific conditions, if any, related to the project.
The Administration and County Counsel would subsequently negotiate Project Agreements that would be
presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Applicants are required to provide periodic project status reports until the completion of the capital project.
Project Specific Conditions
The Administration recommends that approval of certain projects be conditioned, and that certain of these
conditions be accomplished prior to Board approval of Project Agreements. Other conditions, as illustrated
in the sample project agreement approved by the Board at its August 7 2012 meeting, would have to be satisfied prior to issuance of project funding.
Ravenswood Bay Trail/Dumbarton Link
Applicant must designate project lead for Phases 2 – 4 among the pertinent stakeholders: MROSD,
East Palo Alto, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Menlo Park as part of the project agreement.
Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and submit one of the
following:
Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or
Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed
with, and stamped by the county clerk, or
Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination
filed with, and stamped by the county clerk.
Stanford Perimeter Trail
Applicant must undertake a public outreach process including conducting a minimum of two
community meetings regarding the proposed project with attention to the net loss of 20 – 22 parking
spaces along Stanford Avenue near the Dish trail.
Obtain an Encroachment Permit from the County Roads Department relating to the segment of
Stanford Avenue in County Right-of-Way.
Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and must submit one of
the following:
Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or
Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed
with, and stamped by the county clerk, or
Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination
filed with, and stamped by the county clerk.
6
Packet Pg. 24
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 9 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
Matadero Creek Project
Applicant must complete project Feasibility Study with Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Applicant must execute a Memorandum of Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District for Joint Use of levees and access roads by the public prior to receipt of County funding.
Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and must submit one of
the following:
Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or
Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed
with, and stamped by the county clerk, or
Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination
filed with, and stamped by the county clerk.
Applicant must undertake a public outreach process including conducting a minimum of two
community meetings regarding the proposed project prior to receipt of County funding.
Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101
City of Palo Alto must provide evidence of sufficient matching funds to complete the project prior to receipt of County funding.
Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and must submit one of
the following:
Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or
Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed
with, and stamped by the county clerk, or
Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination
filed with, and stamped by the county clerk.
Spring Down Pond Project
Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and must submit one of
the following:
Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or
Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed
with, and stamped by the county clerk, or
Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination
filed with, and stamped by the county clerk.
CHILD IMPACT
The recommended action would have a positive effect on children and youth because they would be able to
enjoy new recreational facilities that permit them to enjoy the outdoors and experience the health benefits of
physical activity.
6
Packet Pg. 25
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 10 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
SENIOR IMPACT
The recommended action would have a positive impact on seniors who could enjoy some of these recreational facilities.
SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS
The recommended action would have a positive effective on the County’s sustainability goals.
BACKGROUND
At the January 24, 2012 Board meeting, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Administration and County
Counsel a request to provide information that sets forth the legal parameters for the expenditure of funds in
the amount of approximately $10.4 million and that describes internal mechanisms to earmark and administer the funds that were paid to the County by Stanford University on February 29, 2012 pursuant to the Trails Agreement.
A legal opinion and a staff report were distributed to the Board on April 10, 2012.
At the May 22, 2012 Board meeting, the Board considered a proposal by Supervisor Kniss to declare its intent to fund two projects that would provide adequate substitute mitigation for Impact OS-3. The Board
postponed action on the two projects, and directed the Administration and County Counsel to undertake the
following:
Develop a public process and timeline for consideration of projects.
Provide the square footage of new recreational facilities constructed since approval of the Stanford
University General Use Permit.
Provide clarification of the terms “Stanford residents” and “facilities users.”
Determine compliance of the two projects proposed by Supervisor Kniss at the May 22, 2012 Board
meeting with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Provide a description of the target population that would benefit from alternative mitigation measures.
The Administration and County Counsel submitted the requested information at the June 19 Board meeting,
at which time the Board deferred the matter to the August 7, 2012 Board meeting. The Board approved the
proposed process, timeline, the project application and sample project agreement at that meeting.
The Administration proposed reporting back at the October 9 Board meeting with the project applications,
but because of difficulty arranging for tours of the project sites, the Administration requested deferring the
matter to the Board’s November 6 Board meeting. Subsequently, the Administration requested another
deferral to the November 20, 2012 Board meeting.
6
Packet Pg. 26
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 11 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: November 20, 2012
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
The Board would be required to take action at a subsequent Board meeting to approve suitable alternative mitigation projects for impact OS-3 at another time as the County holds $10.4 million to accomplish this
mitigation.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Direct the Administration to prepare project agreements for approved projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
Alt Rec Mitigation Projects Matrix Nov 20 2012 FINAL (PDF)
Roads Dept.Stanford-City of Palo Alto Application Review (PDF)
1 City of Menlo Park Sand Hill Road Pathway (PDF)
2 Ravenswood bay Trail Connection Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF)
3 Mindego Gateway Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF)
4 Red Barn Picnic Area and Trails Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF)
5 El Corte De Madera Creek Staging Area and Trails Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District(PDF)
6 Alpine Pond Trail and Boardwalk Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF)
7 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Pt 1- Cover_TOC_Introduction (PDF)
7 a. Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Pt 2 - Executive Summary (PDF)
8 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Pt 3 - Stanford Perimeter Trail (PDF)
9 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Park Blvd Bicycle Boulevard (PDF)
10 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Matadero Creek Trail (PDF)
11 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101 (PDF)
12 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Arastradero Road C-2 Trail Upgrades (PDF)
13 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Pt 5 - Appendices (PDF)
14 Fremont Road Pedestrian Equestrian and Bicycle Trail Project Town of Los Altos Hills (PDF)
15 Town of Portola Valley Spring Down Pond Project (PDF)
16 Town of Portola Valley Ford Field RenovationExpansion Project (PDF)
17 Town of Portola Valley Triangle Park Expansion Project (PDF)
Correspondence received through November 15, 2012 (PDF)
6
Packet Pg. 27
Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP
Page 1 of 8
Sand Hill Road Pathway
Replacement of existing
asphalt path along Sand
Hill Road bet. Santa Cruz
Ave. & Monte Rosa Dr.
City of Menlo
Park No $525,000 $300,000 $825,000
The project is ready to go, pending
funding. The project is exempt
from CEQA.
No
Ravenswood Bay Trail
Connection/Dumbarton
Link in Bay Trail
(Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve ) Builds last 0.6
mile segment in South Bay
portion of 500-mile SF Bay
Trail, which would connect
Redwood City to Alviso in
one continuous 26-mile
trail & provides
Dumbarton connection to
East Bay part of Bay Trail
Midpeninsula
Regional
Open Space
District /
Supervisor
Kniss
Yes
$2.1 million
by MROSD.
Alternative
request of $2
million by
Supervisor
Kniss
$95,000 +
public
easement land
value
$2,195,000
MROSD is in Phase 1 (conceptual
design, public engagement, &
enviro review) to obtain trail
easement from SFPUC. This phase
incl. certification of a project-level
enviro doc. Funding request pays
for Phases 2 - 4 (design & trail
construction). Because the
project site is w/i East PA and
Menlo Park, MROSD, ABAG,
SFPUC, East PA & Menlo Park
need to determine best project
lead for phases 2 - 4. Regulatory
permits to be secured from mid-
2014 thru 2015.
No
Project Description
Within
Santa Clara
County
Create
Additional
Recreational
Facilities or
Uses
Agency
Sponsor
Funding
Request
Other
Dedicated
Sources of
Matching
Funds
Project Readiness & CEQA Review
Status
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
6.a
Packet Pg. 28
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
l
t
R
e
c
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
1
2
F
I
N
A
L
(
6
5
2
3
8
:
R
e
p
o
r
t
B
a
c
k
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP
Page 2 of 8
Project Description
Within
Santa Clara
County
Create
Additional
Recreational
Facilities or
Uses
Agency
Sponsor
Funding
Request
Other
Dedicated
Sources of
Matching
Funds
Project Readiness & CEQA Review
Status
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Mindego Gateway
(Russian Ridge Open Space
Preserve ) Staging area & 1-
mile Ancient Oaks
Connector Trail. (Part of
larger project incl. Trail to
Mindego Hill &
Commemorative Site)
Midpeninsula
Regional
Open Space
District
Yes $518,150 $440,930 $959,080
The project has already been
designed and permitted. The
grant funds would pay for
construction. Construction could
be completed by Spring/Summer
2013. An Initial Study and
Mitigated Neg Dec are on file.
No
Red Barn Picnic Area and
Trails (La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve )
Scenic picnic area, future
segment of BA Ridge Trail
incl. a 1-mile interpretive
loop trail, a 5-mile multi-
use loop trail, & 1.5-mile
connector trail
Midpeninsula
Regional
Open Space
District
Yes $586,000 $390,000 $976,000
Engineering and Design by Oct.
2014 for Connector and Loop Trail
and Construction in Oct. 2015. An
Initial Study and Mitigated Neg
Dec are on file. Need to obtain
regulatory permits and grading
permits from County of San
Mateo.
No
6.a
Packet Pg. 29
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
l
t
R
e
c
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
1
2
F
I
N
A
L
(
6
5
2
3
8
:
R
e
p
o
r
t
B
a
c
k
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP
Page 3 of 8
Project Description
Within
Santa Clara
County
Create
Additional
Recreational
Facilities or
Uses
Agency
Sponsor
Funding
Request
Other
Dedicated
Sources of
Matching
Funds
Project Readiness & CEQA Review
Status
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Staging Area and Trails
Project (El Corte de
Madera Open Space
Preserve ) Staging Area, 2
Multi-Use Trail
Connections, Adds 2-mile
segment of Bay Area Ridge
Trail
Midpeninsula
Regional
Open Space
District
Yes $200,000 $600,000 from
4 Sources $800,000
4-Phase Project. Phase 1 incl.
staging area and 2 trail
connections, which are currently
under construction. The
requested funds would pay for
Phases 2-4, which MROSD is
poised to undertake. These
phases would create 2 miles of
multi-use trails, which creates new
segment of BA Ridge Trail.
No
Alpine Pond Trail and
Boardwalk (Skyline Ridge
Open Space Preserve )
ADA accessible 1/2-mile
boardwalk trail section
over Alpine Pond & picnic
tables, interpretive signs
Midpeninsula
Regional
Open Space
District
Partially
Qualified $490,000 $190,000 $680,000
Engineering and design by Oct.
2013. Permits by Aug. 2014 &
Construction in Oct. 2014. An
Initial Study and Mitigated Neg
Dec are on file.
No
6.a
Packet Pg. 30
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
l
t
R
e
c
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
1
2
F
I
N
A
L
(
6
5
2
3
8
:
R
e
p
o
r
t
B
a
c
k
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP
Page 4 of 8
Project Description
Within
Santa Clara
County
Create
Additional
Recreational
Facilities or
Uses
Agency
Sponsor
Funding
Request
Other
Dedicated
Sources of
Matching
Funds
Project Readiness & CEQA Review
Status
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Stanford Perimeter Trail
A 3.4-mile trail. Part A
(JSB) —1/2 mile of new
shared use path adjacent
to Junipero Serra Blvd.
Part B (Stanford Ave)—Incl.
net loss of 20-22 parking
spaces & install shared use
path on north side of road.
Part C—1/2 mile of new
trail and 0.9 mile of
existing trail upgraded.
Stanford
University &
City of Palo
Alto
Yes $4.5 million $0 $4.5M
Construction anticipated to begin
in 2014. Still requires Engineering
& CEQA not yet started. Need
permits: Clean Water Act Sec 404,
DFG Sec 1602 Streambed
Alteration, Caltrans
Encroachment, SWRCB General
Permit, & encroachment permit
from County for parking spaces
w/i County road ROW.
Yes
Park Boulevard “Bicycle
Boulevard” Linkage 1:
Stanford Ave. from El
Camino to Park. Linkage 2:
Park Blvd bet. Lambert &
Charleston (via Wilkie).
Install signage, apply
"Sharrow" markings on
roadway, remove stop
signs, & install traffic
calming features
Stanford
University &
City of Palo
Alto
No $200,000 $0 $250,000
Project construction would occur
in 4th qtr of 2013. The blvd. was
identified in the City’s Bicycle &
Pedestrian Transportation Plan
2011 & an NOD has been filed on
the Plan. No permits b/c in City
ROW.
Yes
6.a
Packet Pg. 31
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
l
t
R
e
c
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
1
2
F
I
N
A
L
(
6
5
2
3
8
:
R
e
p
o
r
t
B
a
c
k
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP
Page 5 of 8
Project Description
Within
Santa Clara
County
Create
Additional
Recreational
Facilities or
Uses
Agency
Sponsor
Funding
Request
Other
Dedicated
Sources of
Matching
Funds
Project Readiness & CEQA Review
Status
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Matadero Creek Trail
New 1.3 mile shared use
(bike/ped) trail along
levees & access roads of
Matadero Creek from
Bryant St. to Greer Rd.
Property owned by SCVWD
Stanford
University &
City of Palo
Alto
Yes $1.5 million $0
Estimated
$1.5M ($1.2
million in
hard costs &
$800,000 in
engineering
&
contingency)
Levees are owned & operated by
SCVWD. Feasibility Study needs to
be completed first. PA needs to
obtain joint use MOA with
SCVWD. No CEQA review done
yet. No community
outreach/input has occurred yet.
No regulatory permits obtained
yet: US Army Corps Sec 404, CA
F&G Sec. 1602, SWRCB General
Storm Water Construction,
SCVWD Encroachment, PA
Encroachment.
Yes
6.a
Packet Pg. 32
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
l
t
R
e
c
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
1
2
F
I
N
A
L
(
6
5
2
3
8
:
R
e
p
o
r
t
B
a
c
k
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP
Page 6 of 8
Project Description
Within
Santa Clara
County
Create
Additional
Recreational
Facilities or
Uses
Agency
Sponsor
Funding
Request
Other
Dedicated
Sources of
Matching
Funds
Project Readiness & CEQA Review
Status
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Adobe Creek Overcrossing
of Highway 101 Design &
Construction of Shared Use
(bike/ped) overcrossing of
Hwy 101. Connects PA
with Baylands and SF Bay
Trail
Stanford
University &
City of Palo
Alto /
Supervisor
Kniss
Yes
$4M by
Stanford &
Palo Alto.
Alternative
request of
$5M by
Supervisor
Kniss
PA City Council
will be
dedicating $1M
from Stanford
Univ Medical
Center
Mitigation
Fund later this
year. $500,000
already
expended by
PA on
feasibility and
environmental
analysis. Total
Match: $1.5M
Est. $6 - 10
million
Construction is anticipated to
begin in 2015 and end in 2017. No
CEQA review has occurred yet.
Permits need to be obtained: US
Army Corps Sec 404, CA F&G Sec.
1602, CA DOT Encroachment,
SWRCB General Storm Water
Construction, SCVWD
Encroachment and MOA, PA
Encroachment/Street Opening,
County Encroachment in ROW,
Calrans Encroachment, and,
possibly, BCDC.
Yes
Arastradero Road C2 Trail
Upgrades Widen and
repave an existing shared
use (bike/ped) asphalt
path along Arastradero Rd
bet. Purissima Rd (S1 trail)
& Foothill Exwy (Bol Park
Bike Path)
Stanford
University &
City of Palo
Alto
No $200,000
$125K would
come from
PA's CIP "Bike
& Ped Trans
Plan" Fund or
"Parking and
Trans Improv"
Fund
Estimated
$325,000
Construction would begin in 2014.
No CEQA review has occurred yet.
Need encroachment permit from
Los Alto Hills.
Yes
6.a
Packet Pg. 33
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
l
t
R
e
c
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
1
2
F
I
N
A
L
(
6
5
2
3
8
:
R
e
p
o
r
t
B
a
c
k
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP
Page 7 of 8
Project Description
Within
Santa Clara
County
Create
Additional
Recreational
Facilities or
Uses
Agency
Sponsor
Funding
Request
Other
Dedicated
Sources of
Matching
Funds
Project Readiness & CEQA Review
Status
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Fremont Road Pedestrian,
Equestrian, & Bicycle Trail
Project 0.9 mile
ped/equestrian pathway &
class I bike lane on both
sides of Fremont Ave bet.
Concepcion & Arastradero
Rd. Connects to S1 & C2
trails & connects PA trails
w/ 90 miles of LAH trails
Town of Los
Altos Hills Yes $594,000 $0 $594,000
Construction would begin and end
in 2013. No regulatory permits
are needed because it's w/i
Town’s ROW. Environmental
Notice of Exemption has been
filed with County Clerk.
Yes
Spring Down Pond
Convert existing irrigation
stock pond into a 3-ft deep
vernal pool with paths and
benches by removing
cyclone fence, man-made
berm & installing wood
fence & landscaping, etc.
Town of
Portola Valley Yes $135,975 $0 $135,975
Construction and completion in
2013. CEQA and Permits in
process. Submitted permit apps
to Army Corps of Engineers and
San Francisco Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
No
6.a
Packet Pg. 34
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
l
t
R
e
c
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
1
2
F
I
N
A
L
(
6
5
2
3
8
:
R
e
p
o
r
t
B
a
c
k
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP
Page 8 of 8
Project Description
Within
Santa Clara
County
Create
Additional
Recreational
Facilities or
Uses
Agency
Sponsor
Funding
Request
Other
Dedicated
Sources of
Matching
Funds
Project Readiness & CEQA Review
Status
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Ford Field Renovation &
Expansion Project
Renovate existing ballpark
on Alpine Rd w/ ADA
access for spectators, new
infield, outfield, bleachers,
dugouts for Little League
Baseball
Town of
Portola Valley No $324,627 $457,912 $782,539
Construction and completion in
2013. CEQA Notice of Exemption
filed August 17, 2010. No
regulatory permits required.
No
Triangle Park Expansion
Project Renovate existing
park at Alpine & Portola
Rds w/ new lawn area,
irrigation, benches,
walkways, landscaping etc.
Town of
Portola Valley No $112,000 $0 $112,000
Construction and completion in
2014. CEQA not applicable. No
regulatory permits required
No
Total:$15,985,752
Total with Kniss Requests:$16,885,752
6.a
Packet Pg. 35
Att
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
l
t
R
e
c
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
N
o
v
2
0
2
0
1
2
F
I
N
A
L
(
6
5
2
3
8
:
R
e
p
o
r
t
B
a
c
k
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Notes from MRA Matadero Creek Trail Meeting – April 16, 2013
Provided by Sheri Furman, Annette Glanckopf and Karen Lawrence
Attendees: About 70 attendees. 90% live along Matadero Creek. Half bike or walk a mile or more a day.
Presentation by Jaime Rodriquez
Want to hear what should be included in feasibility study, so a better scope of work can be prepared.
Matadero Creek Trail is part of the city bicycle/pedestrian Transportation Plan; E-W from 101 to Alma.
Want to connect it to the Bryant Bike Boulevard.
Bike plans were approved in July, 2012.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) on’t allow lighting along the trail, so it won’t be a 24-hour
trail. Curfew required by SCVWD.
City will have to maintain path instead of SCVWD.
City committed to feasibility study when applying for a grant for the trail; City pays for study.
9 months to complete feasibility study.
If the project isn’t feasible, City won’t get grant money.
In response to multiple resident concerns around safety, privacy, crime, etc. City agreed that MITIGATION could be discussed earlier, and put into the FEASIBILITY STUDY. County grant kicks in
after the feasibility study, with local match.
Attendee Comments
Notification
Most had never heard of project.
Why didn’t City notify residents sooner?
I never got a personal letter, even when a house is built near me I get a letter.
Jaime: Part of Pedestrian and Bike Transportation Plan. Multiple meetings, and much advertisement. In WEEKLY and in Utility bills.
Costs
Jaime: Feasibility study will happen. Cost is $100,000.
Estimated project cost is $2.5 million; grant is $1.5 million.
Stanford is paying for the Stanford Perimeter Trail. The Grant for the project came from Santa Clara County, which pays for the Matadero Creek Trail.
How much more money will this cost (e.g. maintenance, monitoring)?
Objectives
What are objectives? Need to know in order to determine the best way to spend the money.
Need a conceptual framework, value proposition.
Jaime: The bike plan wanted off-road trails. People probably didn’t think of streets needing to be
crossed.
RFP seems to be only looking at the Matadero creekside alignment.
It feels like the City is spending money just because we have it via the $1.5 million grant and there’s a
“use it or lose it” attitude.
The project is a “bridge to nowhere.”
Strategy to build part of trail and hope for the rest is a FLAWED strategy.
Should use money to figure out how to safety cross under 280 on Page Mill.
Feasibility study should be more about soliciting community input. Ask “is this a good way of spending money?”
Many feel we are stuck with Jaime’s vision.
What is the purpose of the trail? Safety? Aesthetics?
City is OVERSELLING this.
According to Jaime, all of the “community” has equal weight in the decision.
Alternatives
Need alternatives. To have alternatives you must have objectives.
Thinking of alternatives to the path is critical.
Concerns for connections to the Midtown Center.
More important to get overpasses over Alma.
Consider a bridge over Matadero to connect the Sterling Canal trail from Greer to Loma Verde.
Must have alternative routes. Project should be called the East-West Midtown Trail because calling it the Matadero Creek Trail limits what’s looked at.
There’s a need for some sort of east-west connection, but not along the creek.
Jaime: The feasibility study will look at alternate routes.
Usage / Aesthetics
The maintenance path is a trail in name only.
There is nothing aesthetic about walking along the creek, which is actually a culvert. Not a place where folks would go for a stroll
The idea of a trail is a romantic notion, but it’s really an alley way.
Aesthetics: “Path” is UGLY – space is between concrete wall and fence.
Safety / Crime
Consider City’s liability; need to understand demand for trail; what are the real costs of maintenance?
Who will close the path at night?
Who will monitor fences, graffiti, curfew, etc.?
Jaime: Feasibility study will include working with PAPD on safety issues.
Many concerns about trail crossing streets, particularly mid-block. Study must include safety issues.
Pedestrians and bicycles – not safe for both on same trail.
Path will be less safe than areas along the street.
Concerns about bikes crossing streets, especially during rush hour traffic and near El Carmelo.
Crosswalks are not adequate.
At night it will be the Midtown Crime Alley.
Who is going to patrol and make sure no one is on path at night?
People will have to get burglar alarms for their homes.
If paved, the skate boarders will use this... I already have problems after 10PM with skateboarder noise.
Skate boards could flip in, sometimes bikes accidents happen when bikes fly into the air...they could go into the creek.
Who will be using the trail? Teenagers at night.
Our property - back yard - is very secluded. The kids go around with no clothes. I am very worried about people going by my property. They could see my kids, it is easy to jump over the fence.
I fear people who smoke might flip a cigarette into my yard and we could have a fire.
When one considers all the factors, I am scared...there is a whole host of things not considered.
In the winter when the water is high, it is very dangerous. People will die. kids sit on the ledge. They could fall in or be pushed.
Install speed bumps and stop lights - not popular with residents.
Bikes coming out of the blind path - cars won't see them, a disaster waiting to happen.
Safety and flooding are big concerns.
This is a bad project with a half a dozen dangerous intersections.
As a biker, I wouldn't cross mid-block on Middlefield. I always cross at the light.
Other
Almost everyone in attendance thinks the plan is not a good idea.
This isn't a green project...people would have to add things.
Concerns for property values.
There is a petition to STOP this project.
Several people want minutes of this meeting – to compare what was talked about to the RFP. City reminds us that this is a COMMUNITY project, not just Midtown. Sheri Furman reminded group that the
RFP is on the MRA website.
Jaime: Will update the RFP based on tonight’s comments.
Suggestion that people should email the City Council with concerns if they are worried about the
concerns not getting into the public record.
MRA Role
Sheri Furman clarified role of MRA – provide information and conversation, not advocacy (even though
she herself as a Matadero neighbor has her own concerns).
MRA will continue to work with the City.
Continued Communication
Send email to shala.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org
Or to City Council, or to MRA (on website)
Memorandum
100 Webster Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 540-5008 phone
(503) 540-5039 fax
www.altaplanning.com Date: July 1, 2014 To: Jaime Rodriguez, City of Palo Alto Cc: Mary Stewart, Randy Anderson, Alta Planning + Design; Rafael Rius, City of Palo Alto From: Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Subject: Matadero Creek Trail Feasibility Study –Public Kickoff Meeting Notes Meeting Date and Location: June 26, 2014 6:30-8pm, Friends of Palo Alto Meeting Room (957 Colorado Ave) Summary of Public Comment/Questions: Process/Coordination - Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Palo Alto Police should be here (at this meeting) - Is SCVWD in discussions with City on this? - Representative from from Parks & Rec Commission, PRC/Planning & Transportation Commission sub-committee: general comments that City commission/sub-committee are following this closely, very interested in promoting safe routes to parks, especially year-round access to the Baylands. Thank you for participating in this project/process Legal Issues/Liability & Risk - Feasibility of suing over transportation use of Matadero Creek (a utility corridor) is high - Will lawyers weigh in on access to Matadero Creek? Will the City be liable for issues along the proposed trail? - Is the City prepared for lawsuits related to property damage? - I’ve already checked and cities aren’t liable for trails in California - How is the City going to protect home owners’ properties (from vandalism, theft, right-of-way takings)?
Alternatives Analysis/Connectivity - Thank you for looking at east-west connections in Midtown, the Bay to Ridge Trail is a great concept, but Matadero Creek Trail won’t meet that vision - Improvements to other (existing) over/undercrossings of key barriers would be better connection, i.e. the orange (proposed Oregon Ave route alternative) and yellow (existing Bay to Ridge Trail on N California Ave) are better - I bike a lot and am very interested in east-west connections; is there an estimate of potential use/trips along the proposed trail? - Are you considering East Meadow Drive as potential alternative route? Seems a better route due to presence of schools and other key destinations along it - How will evaluation criteria be chosen? - Trail doesn’t make sense without crossings of 101 and Alma/Caltrain - Other routes don’t need structural work - What are the alternatives being considered besides the creek trail corridor? - Already a crossing at Charleston Road, El Camino, San Antonio-101; don’t need more - Need a crossing of railroad tracks in Midtown/South Palo Alto; I now walk 40 minutes to transit on El Camino – this would be 10 minutes with new crossing - As an occasional recreational cyclist, I like twists and turns to make my route interesting - Yellow line (N California Ave alternative concept) too far north for this study - Look at east-west connection holistically, not on one corridor - Put green striping/bike facilities on Santa Clara and remove parking on one side - What is the outcome of the feasibility study? Kids/Traffic Safety/School Travel - Loma Verde route has several crossings with crossing guards, this is the appropriate place to improve for school commutes - Do students go to El Carmelo from south of Matadero? - Matadero is an attractive nuisance; kids will go over wall if no one is watching - Related to concerns of creek access: would be interesting to know if there are any issues with crossing of creek at Wilkie Way pedestrian/bicycle bridge - What will happen on Middlefield Road? Kids on the trail currently travel on the sidewalks to get to Midtown snack/eating destinations, and this would get worse with trail. I’m worried about this since I’ve almost hit kids on sidewalks numerous times without any further encouragement of this kind of travel - Speed limits on Middlefield; need to address as people drive too fast - Not enough lighting in Palo Alto (in general), but especially in midtown and along Clara Drive. This affects safety of cyclists and pedestrians - If it’s “dawn to dusk” operation of the trail, users (especially commuters) won’t be able to rely on it in the winter
2 | Alta Planning + Design
- Concerns over potential bike/ped conflicts on proposed trail - Concerned about children cycling in pairs/groups on the street; would like to see education/signage that encourages riding in single file - Concerned about trail concept as a school commute route;, with crossings of busy streets; beware of the illusion of safety (is what I was told by PA police) - Not an improvement for middle/high school kids, who already ride on street en masse - Concerned kids will get hit at crossings - Worried about visibility of cyclists (to motorists) at roadway crossings: sight distances, adding barriers or other features; how will City address this concern? Funding/Costs/Grant - Does the $1.5m grant (from Santa Clara County) only cover funding for Class I trail? - Will the project cost out the whole connection from west of Caltrain/Alma to east of Hwy 101, so we have an honest cost assessment of the full concept? - Why choose Matadero Creek for the grant application? - Existing grant won’t cover everything needed to make good east-west trail; it will be disconnected from where people need to go - City can give back the grant funding and re-apply for different project based on feasibility study outcomes embraced by community - Does the cost (of proposed improvements) affect the rating? Will we provide costs with the rating methodology? Property & Creek Impacts / Crime & Security - Concern about impacts to property values if trail is built - Clara Street resident: Our backyards are already small (15’ deep) as is, and the trail would further reduce effective size of our properties - Would like to see examination of crime rates and estimated impact of trail construction - People already jump the gates and hang out on the creek maintenance roads; will get worse - The trail would ruin privacy/security/safety - People already throw bottles/trash into creek to see it float/hit ducks; how will City handle increase in this activity with better access to creek? - I’m a homeowner along the Creek and City’s GIS parcel data is incorrect – was off by more than 3.5 feet compared to property record of survey. How might this affect others in relation to the project? - Canal is not pretty – it’s a concrete lined channel. People think “creek trail” and support the concept, but reality is not what people are envisioning. I’d rather ride/walk on tree-lined street with interesting front yards, homes to look at - Impossible to climb out of canal in winter with water flowing, if child falls in
3 | Alta Planning + Design
Public Process - What is the process for getting on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee? What is the composition? - Ask the students what they want to see. They take 360 trips a year (180 school days x2) and would know what their needs are/what to improve Meeting Attachments: 1. Project flier with annotated comments – from resident Julie Nolan 2. Summary of concerns – from resident Patricia Bilir 3. Ellsworth Drive – exhibits to verify discrepancies between City GIS, record of survey data near Matadero Creek (from resident) 4. Meeting sign-in sheet
4 | Alta Planning + Design
Palo Alto Midtown Connector Citizen Advisory Committee
September 8, 2015 Agenda
Mitchell Park Community Center
South Adobe Room, 6:00 pm
Estimated Time
1. Welcome and Introductions 15 min
2. Goals for Tonight 5 min
3. Review findings of preliminary constructability review 15 min
4. Open Question & Answer Period 20 min
Break 10 min
5. Discuss Options, Develop draft Citizen Advisory Committee 45 min
Recommendation
6. Next Steps 10 min
City Council Study Session – Monday October 26, 2015
“Review and Comment on the Status of Palo Alto’s Bicycle Program”
7. Adjourn
Enclosures:
Matadero Creek Trail alignment constructability review memo
Summary of Matadero Creek Flood Control Project
Conceptual Ramp configuration at Louis Road
Notes:
1
PLANNING
AND
COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
Date:
September
3,
2015
To:
Midtown
Connector
Citizen
Advisory
Committee
From:
Sarah
Syed,
Senior
Transportation
Planner
Subject:
Midtown
Connector
Project
Update:
Matadero
Creek
Trail
alignment
constructability
review
findings
INTRODUCTION
The
Midtown
Connector
Project
seeks
to
identify
routes
on
and
parallel
to
the
Matadero
Creek
between
Highway
101
and
Alma
Street
that
serve
to
connect
community
facilities
for
use
by
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
of
all
ages.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A
preliminary
constructability
review
indicates
that
constraints
along
the
Matadero
Creek
alignment
may
limit
the
feasibility
of
a
public
access
trail
on
a
majority
of
the
Matadero
Creek
corridor.
Constraints
include
access
closure
structures
that
are
put
in
place
at
three
locations
to
prevent
flooding
during
the
rainy
season
and
steep
trail
gradients
required
for
maintenance
access
to
the
creek
channel.
Prior
to
these
findings,
the
City
of
Palo
Alto
had
anticipated
carrying
forward
the
Matadero
Creek
alignment
through
completion
of
a
final
Feasibility
Study
and
Preliminary
Environmental
Assessment.
The
constraints
identified
raise
important
policy
questions
and
staff
is
finalizing
the
preliminary
findings
for
presentation
to
City
Council
next
month.
Staff
will
develop
options
on
how
to
proceed
for
City
Council
consideration,
with
input
from
the
Citizen
Advisory
Committee.
2
BACKGROUND
The
Midtown
Connector
Project
seeks
to
identify
routes
on
and
parallel
to
the
Matadero
Creek
between
Highway
101
and
Alma
Street
that
serve
to
connect
community
facilities
for
use
by
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
of
all
ages.
The
Citizen
Advisory
Committee
(CAC)
was
appointed
in
early
2015
for
the
purpose
of
increasing
community
participation
in
the
planning
process
to
help
define
overall
project
objectives,
identify
alignment
alternatives,
and
to
consider
the
criteria
for
evaluating
alternatives.
At
the
first
Citizen
Advisory
Committee
meeting
(February
26,
2015),
the
project
team
and
committee
members
discussed
preliminary
trail
alignments
including
(1)
the
Matadero
Creek
Trail
route
along
the
levees
of
Matadero
Creek
and
(2)
On-‐Street
Bicycle
Routes
with
Enhanced
Pedestrian
Facilities,
including
N.
California
Avenue,
Oregon
Avenue,
Moreno
and
Amarillo
Avenues,
Colorado
Avenue,
E.
Meadow
Drive,
and
Loma
Verde
Avenue.
The
City
sought
input
on
draft
criteria
for
selection
of
alignments
and
agreement
on
five
alternative
alignments
for
initial
screening
using
the
criteria.
The
City
and
CAC
members
also
discussed
goals
for
Community
Workshop
#2,
subsequently
held
April
14,
2015.
While
the
City
Council
charged
the
staff
with
assessing
the
feasibility
of
the
Matadero
Creek
alignment,
Citizen
Advisory
Committee
members
have
sought
to
understand
the
rationale
for
selecting
the
creek
alignment
for
in
depth
evaluation
prior
to
a
screening
of
alternative
alignments
using
the
evaluation
criteria
developed
for
ranking
east-‐west
connector
routes.
Questions
raised
include
the
weighting
of
the
different
criteria,
whether
a
creek
trail
that
could
not
remain
open
24
hours
a
day
and
365
days
per
year
is
worth
studying,
and
how
and
when
costs
for
each
option
figured
into
the
evaluation.
CURRENT
PROJECT
ACTIVITIES
Following
the
April
14,
2015
Community
Workshop,
the
City
postponed
the
May
Citizen
Advisory
Committee
meeting
to
take
a
fresh
look
at
the
feasibility
study
approach.
Staff
determined
that
the
evaluation
of
alignment
alternatives
should
not
proceed
further
prior
to
an
initial
screening
of
the
Matadero
Creek
Trail
alignment
in
collaboration
with
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District.
The
following
is
a
preliminary
summary
of
this
investigation.
MATADERO
CREEK
TRAIL
ALIGNMENT
SCREENING
Staff
identified
potential
impacts
of
the
Matadero
Creek
Flood
Control
Project
on
trail
feasibility
as
an
area
requiring
further
investigation.
Staff
reviewed
historical
documents,
including
the
Matadero/Barron
Creeks
Long-‐Term
Remediation
Project
Engineer’s
Report,
Construction
Drawings,
and
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report.
3
The
City
also
engaged
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District
staff,
from
whom
a
Joint
Use
Agreement
would
be
required
for
public
access
to
the
levees
along
the
Matadero
Creek.
Matadero
Creek
Flood
Control
Project
The
Matadero/Barron
Creeks
Long-‐Term
Remediation
Project,
a
six-‐year,
$23
million
flood-‐
control
effort
was
completed
in
2005
to
increase
the
capacity
of
Matadero
Creek
to
achieve
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District’s
and
the
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency’s
(FEMA)
goal
of
100-‐year
(1%)
flood
protection
for
local
residents
and
businesses.
The
improvements
reduce,
but
do
not
eliminate,
the
risk
of
flooding
in
Matadero
and
Barron
Creeks
between
Middlefield
Road
and
San
Francisco
Bay.
While
the
project
provides
protection
for
a
1%
(100-‐year)
flood
event,
it
does
not
affect
tidal
flooding
which
affects
the
channel
area
from
the
Bay
to
approximately
Middlefield
Road.
The
Project
included
construction
of
access
closure
structures,
which
are
installed
across
the
existing
maintenance
road
annually,
from
October
to
April,
at
three
locations:
Middlefield,
Louis,
and
Greer
Roads.
These
structures
are
installed
manually
and
are
required
for
flood
control
during
high
water
events.
Information
gathered
to
date
indicates
a
creek
trail
was
not
a
priority
for
either
agency
during
the
planning
process
for
the
flood
control
project,
when
trail
infrastructure
might
have
been
designed
in
harmony
with
the
project.
A
summary
of
the
Matadero/Barron
Creeks
Long-‐Term
Remediation
Project
Review
is
included
in
Attachment
A.
Creek
Channel
Maintenance
Access
The
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District
utilizes
the
existing
levees
to
access
the
Matadero
Creek
channel
for
vegetation
management,
graffiti
and
trash
removal,
and
sediment
removal.
A
public
access
trail
would
need
to
maintain
access
for
maintenance
vehicles
to
secure
a
joint
use
agreement
with
the
Water
District.
Preliminary
concepts
to
maintain
access
indicate
that
the
trail
would
ramp
steeply,
up
and
down
at
approximately
4.99%
gradients
at
four
locations
along
the
creek
trail.
The
maintenance
ramp
would
split
off
at
the
low
point
of
the
trail
and
continue
at
a
steeper
gradient
to
access
the
channel.
Attachment
B
provides
a
conceptual
ramp
configuration
at
Louis
Road
with
maintenance
access
to
the
channel.
Alternative,
more
costly
solutions,
involving
right
of
way
acquisition
have
not
been
analyzed.
Five
percent
grades
are
not
comfortable
for
many
people
who
walk
and
bicycle.
Due
to
existing
block
lengths,
trail
users
would
experience
few
flat
segments
of
trail.
Other
area
trails
that
ramp
up
and
down
typically
do
so
to
provide
benefits
to
users,
such
as
grade
separated
crossings
of
intersections.
Coupled
with
at
grade
crossings
of
intersections,
the
ramp
configuration
required
for
maintenance
access
would
likely
discourage
many
potential
trail
users.
Locations
that
would
require
ramping
include:
4
• East
of
Alma
on
the
north
side
• East
of
Middlefield
on
the
south
side
(at
the
tennis
courts)
• East
of
Louis
on
the
north
side
• At
US
101
Matadero
Creek
Trail
Alignment
Screening
Conclusion
In
summary,
the
initial
screening
identifies
significant
potential
challenges
to
achieving
the
vision
of
a
creek
trail
alignment
to
connect
community
facilities
for
use
by
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
of
all
ages.
Should
the
City
continue
to
pursue
a
trail
on
the
Matadero
Creek
levees,
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District
staff
has
outlined
the
following
options:
1) City
takes
on
full
responsibility
to
close
trail
to
public
and
install
access
closure
structures
in
advance
of
a
significant
rain
event
and
to
remove
them
following
a
significant
rain
event
2) Keep
the
trail
closed
during
the
rainy
season
from
approximately
October
to
April,
similar
to
the
Adobe
Creek
undercrossing.
Staff
will
discuss
these
findings
further
with
the
Citizen
Advisory
Committee
at
the
September
8,
2015
meeting
and
solicit
committee
input
for
a
discussion
of
options
with
the
City
Council
in
October.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment
A:
Matadero/Barron
Creeks
Long-‐Term
Remediation
Project
Review
Attachment
B:
Ramp
Configuration
Concept
with
4.99%
Gradient
for
Maintenance
Access
to
Channel
Attachment
A
MATADERO/BARRON
CREEKS
LONG-‐TERM
REMEDIATION
PROJECT
REVIEW
The
Matadero
Creek
Remediation
Project,
a
six-‐year,
$23
million
flood-‐control
effort
was
completed
in
2005
to
increase
the
capacity
of
Matadero
Creek
to
achieve
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District’s
and
the
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency’s
(FEMA)
goal
of
100-‐year
(1%)
flood
protection
for
local
residents
and
businesses.
The
improvements
reduce,
but
do
not
eliminate,
the
risk
of
flooding
in
Matadero
and
Barron
Creeks
between
Middlefield
Road
and
San
Francisco
Bay.
While
the
project
provides
protection
for
a
1%
(100-‐year)
flood
event,
it
does
not
affect
tidal
flooding
which
affects
the
channel
area
from
the
Bay
to
approximately
Middlefield
Road.
The
remediation
project
was
initiated
in
1999.
The
Engineer’s
Report
and
Environmental
Impact
Report
were
completed
in
October
2002.
The
design
was
performed
from
2002-‐
2003,
and
included
modification
of
floodwalls
between
Alma
Street
and
U.S.
Highway
101,
the
replacement
and
raising
of
the
Louis
Road
Bridge
as
well
as
channel
modifications
under
the
bridge,
and
excavation
of
an
overflow
bypass
downstream
of
Highway
101
to
the
Palo
Alto
Flood
Basin
to
preserve
the
natural
Matadero
Creek
channel
but
provide
additional
conveyance
of
high
flows
to
the
Palo
Alto
Flood
Basin.
The
Project
included
construction
of
access
closure
structures,
which
are
installed
across
the
existing
maintenance
road
annually,
from
October
to
April,
at
three
locations:
Middlefield,
Louis,
and
Greer
Roads.
These
structures
are
required
for
flood
control,
as
Matadero
Creek
is
subject
to
flooding
at
high
water
events.
In
October
2002,
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District
issued
a
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
(EIR)
for
the
Matadero/Barron
Creeks
Long-‐Term
Remediation
Project.
In
the
review
of
the
project
for
Consistency
with
Adopted
Plans
and
Policies,
the
EIR
does
not
mention
the
Santa
Clara
County
Countywide
Trails
Master
Plan’s
1995
identification
of
the
Matadero
Creek/Page
Mill
Trail
as
a
sub-‐regional
trail
passing
through
Palo
Alto,
Los
Altos
Hills,
and
Stanford
from
the
Bay
Trail
to
the
Bay
Area
Ridge
Trail.
No
agencies
commented
on
the
project’s
failure
to
consider
the
impact
of
the
project
on
the
proposed
trail
corridor.
In
2003,
the
Palo
Alto
City
Council
approved
negotiations
to
execute
an
easement
with
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Water
District
to
construct,
operate,
and
maintain
portions
of
the
Matadero
Creek
overflow
flood
control
channel
on
City
property.
In
the
staff
report
to
Council
on
this
item,
staff
discuss
bicycle
and
pedestrian
pathways
in
the
project
area,
stating,
“The
City
and
the
Water
District
are
also
exploring
the
potential
of
a
separate
project
that
would
add
a
pedestrian
and
bicycle
pathway
along
Matadero
Creek,
under
Highway
101,
accessing
near
Greer
Park
or
Greer
Road.
The
district
is
developing
a
feasibility
analysis
and
will
continue
to
work
with
staff.”
Staff
continue
to
search
for
records
of
this
feasibility
analysis
to
document
the
outcome
of
past
consideration
of
this
corridor.
Midtown East - West Connector
Matadero Creek Trail Alignment at Louis Road looking East
Bird’s eye views of potential SCVWD ramp / trail reconfiguration
View along the trail from the north side of Louis Road View from across Louis Road
Challenge:Defining Project Parameters
""""
""
"""
""
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
"
n
n
n
n
n
"b
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
M
i
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Lo
u
i
s
R
d
Ro
s
s
R
d
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
Oregon Expy
Oregon Ave
Al
m
a
S
t
Ca
l
t
r
a
i
n
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Meado
w
D
r
W
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
E
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
US
1
0
1
Br
y
a
n
t
S
t
Charl
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Colorad
o
A
v
e
Clara Dr
Sutter Ave
Gr
e
e
r
R
d
Loma Ver
d
e
A
v
e
Way
California Ave
Fab
i
a
n
W
a
y
Amarillo Ave
Oregon
Expressway
Pedestrian
Overcrossing
Future
Adobe Creek
Pedestrian
Overcrossing
Oregon
Expressway
Pedestrian
Overcrossing
Future
Adobe Creek
Pedestrian
Overcrossing
Hansen
Way
Gr
e
e
r
R
d
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
Matadero C
r
e
e
k
Barron Cr
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
W
a
v
e
r
l
y
S
t
El Dorado Ave
El Carmelo Ave
Ge
n
g
R
d
Adobe Creek
Mayview Ave
Fa
b
e
r
P
l
Colorad
o
A
v
e
Ames Ave
Portage Ave
Moreno Ave
California Avenue
Pedestrian
Undercrossing
California Avenue
Pedestrian
Undercrossing
Oregon Expy
Undercrossing
Oregon Expy
Undercrossing
At-Grade
Caltrain
Crossing
At-Grade
Caltrain
Crossing
Baylands
Preserve
!I 0 0.250.125
Miles
» Oregon Avenue
» Colorado Avenue
• From Alma Street to W Bayshore Road, and
• An alternative alignment from Alma Street along El
Dorado Avenue and Cowper Street to Colorado Avenue
» Matadero Creek, including potential on-street connections
around constrained areas
» Loma Verde Avenue
• From Alma Street to W Bayshore Road, and
• From Bryant to W Bayshore Road
» E & W Meadow Drive
City of Palo Alto Bicycle Network
Midtown East-West Connector
Private Pathways
Park Trails
One-Way Bicycle Lane (with opposing Sharrows)
Class III Shared Roadway (Sharrows)
Class III Shared Arterial (or Further Study Needed)
Bicycle Boulevard
Across Barrier Connection (ABC)
Enhanced Bikeway (with existing Class II Bike Lane)
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class I Multi-Use Path
Study Area Not in Study Area
Spot Improvement
Existing Proposed
Enhanced Bikeway (with existing Class III or no facility)
Dedicated On-Street
Shared On-Street
Parks and Open Space
Selec t Attrac tors and Generators
"b Caltrain Station
Caltrain Tracks
Schoolsn
"
!
Baylands
Preserve
Preliminary Alignment Alternative
Challenge:Trail Clarity and Continuity